Some card counters use two counts, to separate odds from strategy. I could never imagine myself memorizing all those cutoff numbers. These two counts aren't ind

Some card counters use two counts, to separate odds from strategy. I could never imagine myself memorizing all those cutoff numbers. These two counts aren't independent; once you establish a 2-dimensional parameter space, the regions of interest aren't going to be defined by coordinate cuts. They're going to be blobs. But for some of us visual thinkers, blobs are easier to remember than a table of cutoff numbers. I never wrote the code to compute this strategy, back in 1990. Today it would be easy. If what I said is obvious to you, have a go at it? A card counting scheme is essentially a gradient vector, simplified to varying degrees to be memorable and practical. One takes the gradient at a full deck. Should one design the second count based on a gradient taken elsewhere, such as the typical imbalance when the whale comes over to bet? Better, the 2-dimensional projection should be allowed to evolve in simulation. A pair of gradient vectors is a good initial seed, but only that. And a strategy based on "blob" charts will evolve differently than a strategy based on cutoff numbers, potentially realizing greater gains.